LAKHBIR SINGH Vs. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the claim for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds be rejected only on the ground that the application had been submitted after an inordinate delay ? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition.

(2.) A few facts may be noticed. The petitioner's father Nachhatar Singh was working as a Daftri in the United Commercial bank. He unfortunately passed away on June 23, 1978, leaving behind a widow who was 32 years old, a daughter who was 1-1/2 years of age and the petitioner who was about 6 months old. In May, 1995, the petitioner's mother submitted an application for the grant of an appointment to her son (the petitioner) on compassionate grounds. This request was declined vide order dated August 5, 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. A perusal of this communication shows that the respondent had taken the view that the request did not "fall within the ambit of the scheme for employment on compassionate ground". The petitioner attained majority on December 2, 1995. Soon thereafter, he sent a notice to the respondent Bank on January 1, 1996, for the grant of appointment to him on compassionate grounds. The respondent's counsel sent a reply to the petitioner's counsel vide communication dated February 12, 1996. A copy of this reply is on record as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. In this reply, it was disclosed that the petitioner's request was declined on the ground that the "application in the instant case has been received after inordinate delay and this is not covered within the Scheme". The petitioner then requested the counsel for the respondent Bank to furnish to him a copy of the scheme/policy decision under which the appointment was granted to the dependent of a deceased employee on compassionate grounds. No reply was given. The petitioner has, however, produced a copy of the scheme published by the Bank as Annexure P-7 with the writ petition. Having failed to get any reply, he has filed the present petition with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent Bank "to give employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds".

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the Bank, it has been submitted by way of a preliminary objection that the request for appointment on compassionate grounds was received in the year 1995. On examination of the matter, it was found that the case of the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of the scheme. A citizen cannot claim compassionate employment after the crisis is over. On merits, it has been pointed out that "at the time of the death of the father of the petitioner, there was no mandate to inform the family of the deceased" about the scheme regarding grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. It has been admitted that the petitioner's mother had made an application"in April, 1995, requesting the Bank to give employment to the petitioner." However, this request was rejected as "it did not fall within the ambit of the Scheme of compassionate employment". As per the scheme" the request should be made within a period of one year from the death of the employee." It was provided that in case the dependent is a minor and does not possess suitable qualifications, his/her case can be considered within four years of the death of the employee to enable him/her to qualify in terms of age/qualifications, provided the dependent makes a request to the Bank within one year of the death of the employee. The scheme does not provide for any relief to the persons who apply beyond the period of the stipulated time of one year. There is no scope in the scheme to consider "the cases who (which) are not covered within the scheme". The scheme for grant of appointment "is just a means to tide over the immediate financial crisis cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over". On these premises, the respondent Bank prays that the writ petition be dismissed with costs.